Headlines

NJ

Why liberals should thank Justice Scalia for gun control

Scalia will never be a hero to liberals, of course. But his emphasis on originalism and textualism seems to coincide with liberal interests on guns precisely because there were restrictions on guns during the colonial era; his reading of the original intent of the law was that it allowed an average person to have a typical firearm. Indeed, back in July, when he was promoting a new book, Scalia told Fox News that the Second Amendment “undoubtedly” permits some restrictions on firearms…

Heller may allow all of the Obama proposals to be upheld, but one never knows. Still, even as he led the Court to strike down D.C.’s handgun ban, Scalia issued an opinion rich with clues for how he might rule. The opinion talks a lot about weapons that are widely held. When he heard arguments for the case, Scalia said, “I don’t know that a lot of people have machine guns or armor piercing bullets.” He notes “dangerous and unusual weapons.” If gun advocates can make the case that a badass Bushmaster is a commonly held weapon, they might get some traction with Scalia, but if high-powered, semiautomatic weapons with large magazines are considered a subculture, it’s hard to see Scalia voting to strike down those laws. (He’s already made it clear that the Constitution’s phrase “bear arms” means something that you can carry, so tanks and planes are out, in case you were worried.)

As Mark Levin said, it’s not a national registry of gun owners we need, but a national registry of liberals.
-Where do you live?
-How much is your income?
-Itemize your properties.
-Name your children and their addresses.

Former Justice John Paul Stevens said last fall, as quoted by The New York Times: “Even as generously construed in Heller, the Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations prohibiting the ownership or use of the sorts of automatic weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado, and Arizona in recent years. The failure of Congress to take any action to minimize the risk of similar tragedies in the future cannot be blamed on the Court’s decision in Heller.”

If Stevens really thinks “automatic” weapons were used in any of those incidents, then he had no business ever being on the Supreme Court.

They’ve always struck a bargain with the left against the 2nd Amendment, whereby you get some “common sense” gun restrictions if you don’t call out the conservatives for ignoring the plain text. Of course, the liberals have to admit that they are in contempt of the plain text to call conservatives out, but they don’t care about that. Living, breathing, don’t ya know.

The 2nd Amendment forbids any gun restrictions whatsoever, without doubt. That is a problem in today’s age, but a bigger problem is doing something about it if it weakens our hand. Any concessions made on guns would have to strengthen our ability to preserve liberty somewhere else.

I don’t think an assault weapon ban would ever pass a Supreme Court test, there’s no rational basis for banning one rifle with a flash hider or a bayonet lug that is functionally no different from a legal one that doesn’t. Magazine bans might have more of a chance, but I think if you look at what the police are carrying in order to fulfill their duties of defending lives and protecting themselves from criminals, it would be hard to argue that a civilian who can face the same kind of threat shouldn’t be allowed the same means of defense. We got the Miller decision that led to all the bans and restrictions up until Heller because only government council showed up to argue their side of the case. That’s not going to happen again.